It is short for "confer", which is Latin, the imperative singular of "conferre", which means "to compare". It is more commonly abbreviated (in academic texts) as "cf.".

So literally it means "compare". But in Spanish, in my experience, people use cf. to mean "see", for which they should really use "vid." (vide, from videre) or "véase" or "ver". I was strictly trained not to do this, but it's standard practice in Spanish and cf. (or here conf.) is used when things are not actually being compared, strictly speaking. I tend to translate it in academic texts as "see", unless it really does mean "compare".

"cf., cfr., conf., confr. - cónfer (“compárese, véase”)"
http://www.cij.gov.ar/nota-8524-Lecciones-de-redacci-n--las-...

Note that it's not supposed to be used in laws:

"En el art. 1º: [...]
Se utiliza abreviatura ('conf.'). Las reglas de técnica legislativa disponen que no debieran usarse, aceptando únicamente las siguientes: Art., CN (Constitución Nacional) y la denominación de los Códigos (CC por Código Civil)."
http://www.concejobariloche.gov.ar/index2.php?option=com_con...

--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 5 hrs (2016-05-04 07:45:18 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------

Of course you could use "cf.", the normal English (and Spanish) abbreviation of the same thing, even though it would be wrong in most cases. More correctly, you could use "v." or "vid." (for vide). But I personally think it's better to say "see". The tendency in academic English, and even (though to a lesser extent) in legal English, is to replace these old-fashioned Latin abbreviations. "Cf.", when it really means "cf." and not "see", is still in common use, but otherwise "see" is normal.

--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 5 hrs (2016-05-04 07:49:28 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------

And note that in my Argentine government abbreviation list (first reference above) they actually acknowledge that "conf." is used both for "compárese" and for "véase".

--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 7 hrs (2016-05-04 09:42:27 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------

Note that Ana's suggestion of "acc. to", whereby "conf." allegedly means "conforme", is a widespread misconception, contradicted by the sources already cited.

On the very common use of "cf." (or conf.) used to mean "see", the Chicago Manual, as usual, states the correct position. This quotation is second hand, since I don't have a CMOS subscription:

"Authors should keep in mind the distinction between see and cf., using cf. only to mean "compare" or "see by way of comparison." Neither term is italicized in notes ......

[Examples]:
28. For further discussion of this problem, see Jones, Conflict, 49
29. Others disagree with my position; cf. Jones, Conflict 101-3"
http://thegrammarexchange.infopop.cc/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/3406...

So cf., properly used, means that the the reference that follows represents something that diverges from the statement made. When the reference that follows is simply the source of a statement made, cf. is wrong (though common). Cf. is useful when used precisely. You might have a reference that runs "See Art. X; cf. Art. Y)". This means that Art. X is the source of what I've said, and Art. Y says something different but relevant, so I invite you to compare it.

Actually, another option, when "conf." simply introduces the reference for the statement made, is to leave it out altogether. "The same law states that painting pigs blue is prohibited in Argentina (see Art. 25)"; you could just say "(Art. 25)".

As for legal style, here's an American guide

"Cf.
Cf. is the abbreviation for compare. When you use cf. to introduce a citation, you are stating that the authority you are citing supports a proposition different than yours, but which is nevertheless "sufficiently analogous to lend support." You should include an explanatory parenthetical when using cf.
The typeface is the same as that for see, but make
sure to underline the period in court documents and legal memoranda and italicize it in law review footnotes!"
http://www.bu.edu/av/lawlibrary/9781467906265.pdf


--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 7 hrs (2016-05-04 09:56:19 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------

Sorry to bang on (this one could run and run), but on the question of whether or not to omit it altogether in American legal style, the entry on "see" in the Boston style guide just cited is worth noting:

"See
When you use see, you are stating that the cited authority "clearly supports" your proposition. According to The Bluebook, see is used rather than [no signal] when your proposition is not identical to that stated by the cited authority, but, nevertheless, follows obviously from it."

This "Bluebook" is The Bluebook: A Uniform System of Citation, published by the Columbia, Harvard, and University of Pennsylvania Law Reviews, and the Yale Law Journal (511 pages!). The CMOS of US legal drafting.

--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 7 hrs (2016-05-04 09:57:00 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------



Damn! Failed to cancel the italic.

--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 8 hrs (2016-05-04 10:25:34 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------

In view of the last quotation, it seems to me that the first of the cases in the bit you've cited, which is a quotation from the "comunicación", not a conclusion, is a clear candidate for "[no signal]" in careful US drafting. The second one might be, but perhaps better to make that a "see".